Reply to thread

Message

CGN-42 details. Note the Tomahawk box launchers, I have not been able to find a quantification of what the greater command and control capability and more capable over the horizon targeting (OTH-T) installation was compared to the DDG-47. The increased survivability was fragment, overpressure and shock protection across most of the vitals. Being able to load so much onto the CGN-38 hull was presumably a product of the hull volume made available by abandoning the helicopter hangar under the fantail and the weight allowance that was available, apparently sufficient to accommodate the earlier and heavier (prior to the weight reduction to support DDG installations) DLGN-38 Aegis Weapon System. Even so, adding 1,500 tons of weight, swapping the Mod 0 Mk-26 with a Mod-1 for 20 extra missiles, and adding 161 crew to the same basic hull and machinery plant would surely have created a denser ship with notably different draft and stability characteristics. With a 15 year core life alongside the other features it would have been a very capable vessel though.

<blockquote data-quote="JFC Fuller" data-source="post: 589844" data-attributes="member: 8918"><p>CGN-42 details. Note the Tomahawk box launchers, I have not been able to find a quantification of what the greater command and control capability and more capable over the horizon targeting (OTH-T) installation was compared to the DDG-47. The increased survivability was fragment, overpressure and shock protection across most of the vitals. Being able to load so much onto the CGN-38 hull was presumably a product of the hull volume made available by abandoning the helicopter hangar under the fantail and the weight allowance that was available, apparently sufficient to accommodate the earlier and heavier (prior to the weight reduction to support DDG installations) DLGN-38 Aegis Weapon System. Even so, adding 1,500 tons of weight, swapping the Mod 0 Mk-26 with a Mod-1 for 20 extra missiles, and adding 161 crew to the same basic hull and machinery plant would surely have created a denser ship with notably different draft and stability characteristics. With a 15 year core life alongside the other features it would have been a very capable vessel though.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="JFC Fuller, post: 589844, member: 8918"] CGN-42 details. Note the Tomahawk box launchers, I have not been able to find a quantification of what the greater command and control capability and more capable over the horizon targeting (OTH-T) installation was compared to the DDG-47. The increased survivability was fragment, overpressure and shock protection across most of the vitals. Being able to load so much onto the CGN-38 hull was presumably a product of the hull volume made available by abandoning the helicopter hangar under the fantail and the weight allowance that was available, apparently sufficient to accommodate the earlier and heavier (prior to the weight reduction to support DDG installations) DLGN-38 Aegis Weapon System. Even so, adding 1,500 tons of weight, swapping the Mod 0 Mk-26 with a Mod-1 for 20 extra missiles, and adding 161 crew to the same basic hull and machinery plant would surely have created a denser ship with notably different draft and stability characteristics. With a 15 year core life alongside the other features it would have been a very capable vessel though. [/QUOTE]

Verification